In NAIAD Dynamics US Inc. v. Vidakovic, the Western Australia Supreme Court granted injunctive relief in favor of an Australian employer seeking to prevent a former employee located in Connecticut from engaging in prohibited activities in violation of the restrictive covenants included in his employment agreement. The former employer was successful with the assistance of Attorney Kevin Greene, who provided a necessary expert opinion with regard to Connecticut law governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants and non-competition covenants in particular.
NAIAD Dynamics US Inc. (“NAIAD”) is a Connecticut corporation involved in the design, manufacture, and sale of maritime ride control systems in the global market. In 2009, NAIAD hired the defendant, Mr. Vidakovic as its Global Sales Director and executed an employment agreement, which included non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses. In 2016 Mr. Vidakovic resigned from employment with NAIAD and shortly thereafter began employment with an Australian competitor, VEEM, Ltd. NAIAD brought action in the Western Australia Supreme Court against Mr. Vidakovic for breach of the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement and sought injunctive relief preventing him from working for VEEM.
In order for NAIAD to successfully argue the enforceability of its non-competition clause, it had to present an expert opinion on Connecticut employment law. In this role, Attorney Greene provided his opinion with regard to Connecticut law governing restrictive covenants in the employment context, including the threshold requirement, the five-factor test for determining the validity and enforceability of a covenant not to compete, and the “blue-pencil” exception. The Western Australia Supreme Court ultimately held that NAIAD’s two-year non-competition clause was enforceable and granted an injunction restraining Mr. Vidakovic from employment with VEEM based on the legal opinion and reasoning offered by Attorney Greene.